Blackberry can't send to Dist Group

[rokkena]

I have Exchange 2007 SP1 with a distribution group x. It only accepts messages from members on the list. Senders must be authenticated because members have easily spoofed addresses (john@..., jane@...). My Blackberry users cannot send to the list because they use Blackberry SMTP servers to send, so they don't authenticate. To complicate things, even though the from header is jane@mydomain.com, the X-Env-Sender header changes and generally has the form ABC0=XYZabc=1A=mydomain.com=janey@srs.bis.na.blackberry.com

I'd like some suggestions about how to go about letting Blackberry users send to this distribution group without letting spammers hit this list.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Zelandakh]

Are you not using BES?

 

[rokkena]

Correct, no BES.

 

[Davetoo]

Install and use a BES. There are many reasons why it exists.

I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.

There are no more PDC's! There are DC's with FSMO roles!

 

[58sniper]

I agree. If you're stuck using Blackberry units, use BES.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[Zelandakh]

Yes, get a BES. Far easier and no spoofing.

 

[Davetoo]

Hey! Wait a minute...what do you mean "stuck using Blackberry units"? ;-)

I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.

There are no more PDC's! There are DC's with FSMO roles!

 

[Zelandakh]

A Blackberry is a point to point link to a piece of software that makes Outlook look like a nicely coded product.

A BB is a great way to slow your Exchange environment down.

Unfortunately, users love them like Mac users love their Macs and iPod users love those things.

Zel. PC and Windows Mobile user. Zune owner. Decidedly untrendy...

 

[58sniper]

If you look at the IOPS that Blackberry units or BES introduce into your storage, you'll see why I'm not a fan of them. I've yet to see any company use BES features to any degree that gives them an advantage over Windows Mobile devices. I have nothing against Blackberrys as a phone - I've had three different ones, including one of the first units Blackberry ever made.

In Exchange 2007, users can manage their own devices, including remote wipe, password reset, etc. No extra software, no extra IOPS, no extra licensing.

Pat. PC & Mac and iphone and Windows Mobile and ipod user. Conflicted.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[Davetoo]

It's interesting that the IOPS go way up for BB...funny that. You'd think that since BB's have been around way before MS supported mobile devices that MS would have designed a system that was more friendly towards the devices.

Oh wait...conflict of interest perhaps?

I've used both...can not stand Windows Mobile devices.

I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.

There are no more PDC's! There are DC's with FSMO roles!

 

[Zelandakh]

I've used both, supported Macs for 15 years and am not a hardened Mac or PC nut.

BES sucks the performance out of Exchange, mobile devices don't.

BES can't do TS or Word or Excel or PPT. Try remoting to a server over TS over mobile broadband on a mobile device and feel good.

Mobile devices aren't Blackberries so they won't get popular. They are the Macs of the mobile world.

 

[Davetoo]

The new BB OS has built-in Word/Excel and I believe PP as well, editing, not just viewing, capability. And there are TS packages available for the BB as well.

It's too bad MS chose not to properly support the BB platform in their new design.

I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.

There are no more PDC's! There are DC's with FSMO roles!

 

[58sniper]

Because of the way that BES watches the mailboxes, it's constantly scanning things. Very bad.

Fortunately there are now third party solutions that allow Blackberry units to use ActiveSync.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[Davetoo]

I guess my point is that, like it or not, the BB is "the" business tool preference by far, and the acceptance of WM devices will be slow to come for various reasons. With that in mind, it would have been prudent of MS to have worked closely with RIM to provide a means as to limit the "hit" on the Exchange server that the BB's cause.

I think this was an oversite on their part.

I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.

There are no more PDC's! There are DC's with FSMO roles!

 

[58sniper]

It would have made sense for RIM to license ActiveSync, just like Apple did. Then provide a management console. With ActiveSync, users could have more control.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[Zelandakh]

RIM have a great product that users like. It was a poke in the eye for MS who did not make the sensible mental leap in time and needed to play catch up.

I suppose in the long run it has been good for both sides though.

 

[Davetoo]

I have 46 BB users in my organization now...two iPhone users and one Windows Mobile user.

Honest truth...I have had zero questions/problems from my BB users (other than during setup their carrier would not have set them up on the correct BB plan). The iPhone users are, in general, no issue...and my lone WM user has issues with his device at least every other week.

It may not be connectivity with his email every time, but there is always something he's having issues with. I'd hate to think how things would be if I had 46 WM users. But, that's my experience, YMMV.



I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.

There are no more PDC's! There are DC's with FSMO roles!

 

[Zelandakh]

I blame the admin...

 

[Davetoo]

I'd blame the new admin myself! ;-)

I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.

There are no more PDC's! There are DC's with FSMO roles!